I know a guy who has a Subaru with 315,000 miles (well, more now). It's his daily driver, and he works a factory floor. Although, he was "thinking about" replacing it for the last 3 years at least.
There is nothing wrong with auto engines in airplanes other than trying to make them conform to the stupidity inherent to modern thinking influenced by FAA insanity. The reason (Forgotten) for a redundant starter system is because of the crappy electrics in the 30's. Todays modern engines electrical systems are superior to current aviation engines... The Subaru engine was designed to be an airplane engine and the EA81 is only less than the EA82' Why reduction? This is because the engine is overly powerful for GA needs.Use direct drive and put a stop on the throttle to where it cannot exceed 3,000 rpm. Doing this will eliminate the annual and change it to the bicentennial. Think about it, if pilots were smart they never would have permitted the bureaucrats in FAA to ruin such an inherent right we call aviation. For proof let me ask you :"what difference does it make if a sport pilot buys a plane that is rated to 1450 LBs as opposed to their stupid 1260 Lb infringement? The pilots can physically handle and fly both. What it does do is hurt the industry and kill the sales of a lot of Ercoupes, Piper Pa 28's etc. Take back aviation, fly safe and relegate the FAA to commercial aviation only unless they infringe on GA. That said quit trying to destroy auto engines by converting them to idiotic thinking. Use their electrical system as is , use direct drive. eliminate all regulations not productive to the enjoyment of flying and prepare to smile a lot. Once you overcome dinosaur thinking you will discover the Auto engine will last longer than you will and maybe he next several pilots of it as well will no crashes and a hell of a lot cheaper than mind block thinking.(And never forget HP does not drive props torque does)
Horsepower drives the prop at the proper speed with the proper pitch; power (as the term is used for recip airplane engines) is the product of torque and RPM. I can get a million foot-pounds of torque out of a lawnmower engine with the proper gearing. Hook it up to a prop and you get ... not much airflow. Auto engines may have "too much power", but that's rarely used. Airplane engines run at a greater percentage of their maximum power for most of their lives than anything outside of auto racing.
Horsepower has nothing to do with driving the prop., because Horse Power is hypothetical and speculation, i.e. it does not exist in the real world.Torque is the only thing driving a prop. So called airplane engines have to use two spark plugs for every cylinder for reasons GA has forgotten all about. The redundant requirements have nothing to do with fact other than in the 20's and 30's we did not have the advanced electronics we do today.If you want to have an adjustment to your thinking read all about B.H. Pietenpol and his use of the Model A car engine for flight. It was only a 40HP rated engine yet it could fly two 200 Lb men with ease because of torque. This was an inferior engine by any standard yet it is still flying after 80 years. What were you saying about dependable?
Ignorance is curable.
Stupidity is terminal!
Being in existence for 80 years is not the same as being reliable, nor does one example prove anything.
But you'll never convince some people.
You would be surprised how hard I ran mine. Three years, 120K miles, very few cruising miles. Generally running traffic (DC area), mountains roads (western MD), often with the engine between 4K rpm and 6K to get the best power.
Ah Polish mountain. Fun roads through there,
In the rotary winged world, auto conversions have had proportionately fewer reported accidents. This table shows the percentage of total accidents due to loss of engine power for both fixed wing and rotary winged homebuilts. Auto engines, indeed, come out better.
You can, just change the oil and inspect the gear box more often if you run on 100LL most of the time.
